PeterGregg

I find going from stills to video is like you discovered in your fun time with the A73. What I did for myself to make it easy to do both is to set C1 as base set of video settings and then the same to C2 for a base set of photo settings. If I am going to do video I turn the mode dial to C1 and then adjust from there.
If I am going to shoot some quick images then I turn the dial to C2 and fine tune whatever I want to do with the images. The only catch, or "gotchya" is after you turn from C1 to C2 you MUST hit the SET button to register all the changes. Same when going back to C1. What I should actually say is, whenever you change to a C1 or C2 always hit the center SET button for the changes to happen to the camera.
I was easily able to work this camera this way in a fast paced event. I had the video settings using the wide mode and face detection focus modes plus all my other video settings, but the C2 for pictures is registered differently with the Flex-L focus mode as the launching point when I go to C2. Of course all the other settings registered to my liking for pictures versus video.
Peter
PS I would have liked more than just C1 and C2 like the Panasonics have, but . . .

I agree with many of your statements. One of the statements that you made that I don't agree with is not from this article. First, I am not talking in an adversarial way, so don't raise your shields You made a statement that Canon listens to their customers or photographers or something to that effect. I find from the D30/D60 on forward that isn't true at all. i chuckle when I read Denis Reggie or Jeff Ascough say to me that Canon is listening to them. In my opinion Canon listens to their internal minds, their own game plan, and in a very small very unique window of opportunity, I saw Canon very VERY eager to see what Nikon had up their sleeve at the announcement of the original Nikon D3 camera. At that time, the Canon people were scared sh#tless on what Nikon was launching - I saw it with my own eyes. Never saw that happen again. Leads me to the conclusion that we can add that Canon listens to ONE competitor's actions and products, and that is Nikon. Not Sony or Panasonic, and NOT their customers.
The pattern for Nikon these past few years has been that Nikon has become a sleeping cow. And Canon advancement has tracked Nikon's performance to a the letter. They have been sleepy and lazy because the competition they watch has slumbered off. It is history repeating itself. Pure video people are not going to understand this point of view (with exceptions). But i feel things are going to change. I think Nikon is going to spring out with DPF cameras in a sudden surprise move and start the Nikon Canon machine marching forward again. This isn't pie in the sky there is evidence. Canon will react to money (sales) and Nikon. That is it - end of story. Nikon is asleep - and therefore so is Canon.
Canon will advance with 4K in their cameras when it doesn't matter anymore. probably in about 3 year you will see 4K trickle down to the little cameras and the little people. The only thing to change this track would be Nikon jerking Canon's chain with a Dual Pixel Focus type camera somewhere in their product chain. My guess will be the D810 series with 4K and other goodies this year. Or another camera higher or similar in price next year. Then you will see Canon react. Canon doesn't give a crap about anything else, they have the sales and they have "their" competitor in a choke hold. Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are not competitors - to Canon. When I see comments like Sony is sweeping the market with their products, how many see Canon even blinking lol? Nikon, on the other hand is what moves Canon, can't say it any plainer than that. If Canon sales were going down the toilet, they would react to that too. Neither has budged, and Canon continues to report good sales to their board.
The only buy I can see for active use is the 1DX II. It too leaves a lot to be desired, but there is no other camera I see that can be a workhorse to deliver is a well rounded way. It lacks IS, movie controls, lightness and small size. But it delivers an amazing army of people behind it to keep you up and running (another thing movie people don't put enough sock in - try and get a Panasonic or Sony fixed, yes I know about the new NY and LA  centers lol. Chocolate bars for the kids basically. Go to a world event and Canon and Nikon have 18 wheelers full of bodies and lenses and techs to keep everyone up and running, this is more major than most people admit or recognize. Panasonic, Sony and company are "just" starting to make any noise in this area.
I read in this article something that caught my eye. Are you saying that the 1080 feed thru the HDMI is better than most would expect? i would like to know that, it is is true or not. Recording to a $400 Atomos to ProRes on an SSD at a great 1080 and getting pro level results would be a really appealing thing to read!
Also, got the new 2017 iMac i7 580 8GB GPU 40GB Ram yesterday. A 1 minute 5D4 MJPEG 4GB file transcoded to ProRes LT is 35 seconds. Straight from that file, color corrected and to H264 in 36 seconds (no pre-rendering). Color corrected and add a few plug-ins out in 55 seconds. MJPG jail has been cracked. Can work straight from the files, or transcode out to ProRes.
Please say more about the 1DX2 1080 HDMI output and quality.
Peter

I agree with many of your statements. One of the statements that you made that I don't agree with is not from this article. First, I am not talking in an adversarial way, so don't raise your shields You made a statement that Canon listens to their customers or photographers or something to that effect. I find from the D30/D60 on forward that isn't true at all. i chuckle when I read Denis Reggie or Jeff Ascough say to me that Canon is listening to them. In my opinion Canon listens to their internal minds, their own game plan, and in a very small very unique window of opportunity, I saw Canon very VERY eager to see what Nikon had up their sleeve at the announcement of the original Nikon D3 camera. At that time, the Canon people were scared sh#tless on what Nikon was launching - I saw it with my own eyes. Never saw that happen again. Leads me to the conclusion that we can add that Canon listens to ONE competitor's actions and products, and that is Nikon. Not Sony or Panasonic, and NOT their customers.
The pattern for Nikon these past few years has been that Nikon has become a sleeping cow. And Canon advancement has tracked Nikon's performance to a the letter. They have been sleepy and lazy because the competition they watch has slumbered off. It is history repeating itself. Pure video people are not going to understand this point of view (with exceptions). But i feel things are going to change. I think Nikon is going to spring out with DPF cameras in a sudden surprise move and start the Nikon Canon machine marching forward again. This isn't pie in the sky there is evidence. Canon will react to money (sales) and Nikon. That is it - end of story. Nikon is asleep - and therefore so is Canon.
Canon will advance with 4K in their cameras when it doesn't matter anymore. probably in about 3 year you will see 4K trickle down to the little cameras and the little people. The only thing to change this track would be Nikon jerking Canon's chain with a Dual Pixel Focus type camera somewhere in their product chain. My guess will be the D810 series with 4K and other goodies this year. Or another camera higher or similar in price next year. Then you will see Canon react. Canon doesn't give a crap about anything else, they have the sales and they have "their" competitor in a choke hold. Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are not competitors - to Canon. When I see comments like Sony is sweeping the market with their products, how many see Canon even blinking lol? Nikon, on the other hand is what moves Canon, can't say it any plainer than that. If Canon sales were going down the toilet, they would react to that too. Neither has budged, and Canon continues to report good sales to their board.
The only buy I can see for active use is the 1DX II. It too leaves a lot to be desired, but there is no other camera I see that can be a workhorse to deliver is a well rounded way. It lacks IS, movie controls, lightness and small size. But it delivers an amazing army of people behind it to keep you up and running (another thing movie people don't put enough sock in - try and get a Panasonic or Sony fixed, yes I know about the new NY and LA  centers lol. Chocolate bars for the kids basically. Go to a world event and Canon and Nikon have 18 wheelers full of bodies and lenses and techs to keep everyone up and running, this is more major than most people admit or recognize. Panasonic, Sony and company are "just" starting to make any noise in this area.
I read in this article something that caught my eye. Are you saying that the 1080 feed thru the HDMI is better than most would expect? i would like to know that, it is is true or not. Recording to a $400 Atomos to ProRes on an SSD at a great 1080 and getting pro level results would be a really appealing thing to read!
Also, got the new 2017 iMac i7 580 8GB GPU 40GB Ram yesterday. A 1 minute 5D4 MJPEG 4GB file transcoded to ProRes LT is 35 seconds. Straight from that file, color corrected and to H264 in 36 seconds (no pre-rendering). Color corrected and add a few plug-ins out in 55 seconds. MJPG jail has been cracked. Can work straight from the files, or transcode out to ProRes.
Please say more about the 1DX2 1080 HDMI output and quality.
Peter

I agree with many of your statements. One of the statements that you made that I don't agree with is not from this article. First, I am not talking in an adversarial way, so don't raise your shields You made a statement that Canon listens to their customers or photographers or something to that effect. I find from the D30/D60 on forward that isn't true at all. i chuckle when I read Denis Reggie or Jeff Ascough say to me that Canon is listening to them. In my opinion Canon listens to their internal minds, their own game plan, and in a very small very unique window of opportunity, I saw Canon very VERY eager to see what Nikon had up their sleeve at the announcement of the original Nikon D3 camera. At that time, the Canon people were scared sh#tless on what Nikon was launching - I saw it with my own eyes. Never saw that happen again. Leads me to the conclusion that we can add that Canon listens to ONE competitor's actions and products, and that is Nikon. Not Sony or Panasonic, and NOT their customers.
The pattern for Nikon these past few years has been that Nikon has become a sleeping cow. And Canon advancement has tracked Nikon's performance to a the letter. They have been sleepy and lazy because the competition they watch has slumbered off. It is history repeating itself. Pure video people are not going to understand this point of view (with exceptions). But i feel things are going to change. I think Nikon is going to spring out with DPF cameras in a sudden surprise move and start the Nikon Canon machine marching forward again. This isn't pie in the sky there is evidence. Canon will react to money (sales) and Nikon. That is it - end of story. Nikon is asleep - and therefore so is Canon.
Canon will advance with 4K in their cameras when it doesn't matter anymore. probably in about 3 year you will see 4K trickle down to the little cameras and the little people. The only thing to change this track would be Nikon jerking Canon's chain with a Dual Pixel Focus type camera somewhere in their product chain. My guess will be the D810 series with 4K and other goodies this year. Or another camera higher or similar in price next year. Then you will see Canon react. Canon doesn't give a crap about anything else, they have the sales and they have "their" competitor in a choke hold. Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are not competitors - to Canon. When I see comments like Sony is sweeping the market with their products, how many see Canon even blinking lol? Nikon, on the other hand is what moves Canon, can't say it any plainer than that. If Canon sales were going down the toilet, they would react to that too. Neither has budged, and Canon continues to report good sales to their board.
The only buy I can see for active use is the 1DX II. It too leaves a lot to be desired, but there is no other camera I see that can be a workhorse to deliver is a well rounded way. It lacks IS, movie controls, lightness and small size. But it delivers an amazing army of people behind it to keep you up and running (another thing movie people don't put enough sock in - try and get a Panasonic or Sony fixed, yes I know about the new NY and LA  centers lol. Chocolate bars for the kids basically. Go to a world event and Canon and Nikon have 18 wheelers full of bodies and lenses and techs to keep everyone up and running, this is more major than most people admit or recognize. Panasonic, Sony and company are "just" starting to make any noise in this area.
I read in this article something that caught my eye. Are you saying that the 1080 feed thru the HDMI is better than most would expect? i would like to know that, it is is true or not. Recording to a $400 Atomos to ProRes on an SSD at a great 1080 and getting pro level results would be a really appealing thing to read!
Also, got the new 2017 iMac i7 580 8GB GPU 40GB Ram yesterday. A 1 minute 5D4 MJPEG 4GB file transcoded to ProRes LT is 35 seconds. Straight from that file, color corrected and to H264 in 36 seconds (no pre-rendering). Color corrected and add a few plug-ins out in 55 seconds. MJPG jail has been cracked. Can work straight from the files, or transcode out to ProRes.
Please say more about the 1DX2 1080 HDMI output and quality.
Peter

I agree with many of your statements. One of the statements that you made that I don't agree with is not from this article. First, I am not talking in an adversarial way, so don't raise your shields You made a statement that Canon listens to their customers or photographers or something to that effect. I find from the D30/D60 on forward that isn't true at all. i chuckle when I read Denis Reggie or Jeff Ascough say to me that Canon is listening to them. In my opinion Canon listens to their internal minds, their own game plan, and in a very small very unique window of opportunity, I saw Canon very VERY eager to see what Nikon had up their sleeve at the announcement of the original Nikon D3 camera. At that time, the Canon people were scared sh#tless on what Nikon was launching - I saw it with my own eyes. Never saw that happen again. Leads me to the conclusion that we can add that Canon listens to ONE competitor's actions and products, and that is Nikon. Not Sony or Panasonic, and NOT their customers.
The pattern for Nikon these past few years has been that Nikon has become a sleeping cow. And Canon advancement has tracked Nikon's performance to a the letter. They have been sleepy and lazy because the competition they watch has slumbered off. It is history repeating itself. Pure video people are not going to understand this point of view (with exceptions). But i feel things are going to change. I think Nikon is going to spring out with DPF cameras in a sudden surprise move and start the Nikon Canon machine marching forward again. This isn't pie in the sky there is evidence. Canon will react to money (sales) and Nikon. That is it - end of story. Nikon is asleep - and therefore so is Canon.
Canon will advance with 4K in their cameras when it doesn't matter anymore. probably in about 3 year you will see 4K trickle down to the little cameras and the little people. The only thing to change this track would be Nikon jerking Canon's chain with a Dual Pixel Focus type camera somewhere in their product chain. My guess will be the D810 series with 4K and other goodies this year. Or another camera higher or similar in price next year. Then you will see Canon react. Canon doesn't give a crap about anything else, they have the sales and they have "their" competitor in a choke hold. Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are not competitors - to Canon. When I see comments like Sony is sweeping the market with their products, how many see Canon even blinking lol? Nikon, on the other hand is what moves Canon, can't say it any plainer than that. If Canon sales were going down the toilet, they would react to that too. Neither has budged, and Canon continues to report good sales to their board.
The only buy I can see for active use is the 1DX II. It too leaves a lot to be desired, but there is no other camera I see that can be a workhorse to deliver is a well rounded way. It lacks IS, movie controls, lightness and small size. But it delivers an amazing army of people behind it to keep you up and running (another thing movie people don't put enough sock in - try and get a Panasonic or Sony fixed, yes I know about the new NY and LA  centers lol. Chocolate bars for the kids basically. Go to a world event and Canon and Nikon have 18 wheelers full of bodies and lenses and techs to keep everyone up and running, this is more major than most people admit or recognize. Panasonic, Sony and company are "just" starting to make any noise in this area.
I read in this article something that caught my eye. Are you saying that the 1080 feed thru the HDMI is better than most would expect? i would like to know that, it is is true or not. Recording to a $400 Atomos to ProRes on an SSD at a great 1080 and getting pro level results would be a really appealing thing to read!
Also, got the new 2017 iMac i7 580 8GB GPU 40GB Ram yesterday. A 1 minute 5D4 MJPEG 4GB file transcoded to ProRes LT is 35 seconds. Straight from that file, color corrected and to H264 in 36 seconds (no pre-rendering). Color corrected and add a few plug-ins out in 55 seconds. MJPG jail has been cracked. Can work straight from the files, or transcode out to ProRes.
Please say more about the 1DX2 1080 HDMI output and quality.
Peter

I agree with many of your statements. One of the statements that you made that I don't agree with is not from this article. First, I am not talking in an adversarial way, so don't raise your shields You made a statement that Canon listens to their customers or photographers or something to that effect. I find from the D30/D60 on forward that isn't true at all. i chuckle when I read Denis Reggie or Jeff Ascough say to me that Canon is listening to them. In my opinion Canon listens to their internal minds, their own game plan, and in a very small very unique window of opportunity, I saw Canon very VERY eager to see what Nikon had up their sleeve at the announcement of the original Nikon D3 camera. At that time, the Canon people were scared sh#tless on what Nikon was launching - I saw it with my own eyes. Never saw that happen again. Leads me to the conclusion that we can add that Canon listens to ONE competitor's actions and products, and that is Nikon. Not Sony or Panasonic, and NOT their customers.
The pattern for Nikon these past few years has been that Nikon has become a sleeping cow. And Canon advancement has tracked Nikon's performance to a the letter. They have been sleepy and lazy because the competition they watch has slumbered off. It is history repeating itself. Pure video people are not going to understand this point of view (with exceptions). But i feel things are going to change. I think Nikon is going to spring out with DPF cameras in a sudden surprise move and start the Nikon Canon machine marching forward again. This isn't pie in the sky there is evidence. Canon will react to money (sales) and Nikon. That is it - end of story. Nikon is asleep - and therefore so is Canon.
Canon will advance with 4K in their cameras when it doesn't matter anymore. probably in about 3 year you will see 4K trickle down to the little cameras and the little people. The only thing to change this track would be Nikon jerking Canon's chain with a Dual Pixel Focus type camera somewhere in their product chain. My guess will be the D810 series with 4K and other goodies this year. Or another camera higher or similar in price next year. Then you will see Canon react. Canon doesn't give a crap about anything else, they have the sales and they have "their" competitor in a choke hold. Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are not competitors - to Canon. When I see comments like Sony is sweeping the market with their products, how many see Canon even blinking lol? Nikon, on the other hand is what moves Canon, can't say it any plainer than that. If Canon sales were going down the toilet, they would react to that too. Neither has budged, and Canon continues to report good sales to their board.
The only buy I can see for active use is the 1DX II. It too leaves a lot to be desired, but there is no other camera I see that can be a workhorse to deliver is a well rounded way. It lacks IS, movie controls, lightness and small size. But it delivers an amazing army of people behind it to keep you up and running (another thing movie people don't put enough sock in - try and get a Panasonic or Sony fixed, yes I know about the new NY and LA  centers lol. Chocolate bars for the kids basically. Go to a world event and Canon and Nikon have 18 wheelers full of bodies and lenses and techs to keep everyone up and running, this is more major than most people admit or recognize. Panasonic, Sony and company are "just" starting to make any noise in this area.
I read in this article something that caught my eye. Are you saying that the 1080 feed thru the HDMI is better than most would expect? i would like to know that, it is is true or not. Recording to a $400 Atomos to ProRes on an SSD at a great 1080 and getting pro level results would be a really appealing thing to read!
Also, got the new 2017 iMac i7 580 8GB GPU 40GB Ram yesterday. A 1 minute 5D4 MJPEG 4GB file transcoded to ProRes LT is 35 seconds. Straight from that file, color corrected and to H264 in 36 seconds (no pre-rendering). Color corrected and add a few plug-ins out in 55 seconds. MJPG jail has been cracked. Can work straight from the files, or transcode out to ProRes.
Please say more about the 1DX2 1080 HDMI output and quality.
Peter

You mentioned DSLR, so I am guessing you have a decent understanding of the process to take pictures. You can shoot either a jpg image or a RAW image. With video though, you can only shoot what amounts to a jpg image in video mode. The jpg system in the camera "bakes in" the settings that you set the camera to work with, and in the process it clobbers the file making it much harder to "processes later in your computer. Video people have their own language and they don't call it processing the video, they call it "grading" the video. You know, like teenagers have their own language, video people have their own language :)
 
So in an effort to do the very least clobbering of the file, and leaving as much of the information still to remain in the video, an effort is made to to do as little damage to the file as possible. To do this, the video is shot as "flat" as possible. This means little contrast, little color saturation, little sharpness - basically the most untouched the file can get. This leaves as much of the original data as possible to still be there to addressed and called upon when you get the video into the computer.
 
Companies recognize this process and they try to help. Just like you would have color calibrations called vivid, portrait, landscape, natural, standard and so on, they add special color choices for video. Sony has s-log, Panasonic is adding v-log, and so on. It is as dumbed down as the file can get and still get recovered in the computer.
 
The joke, or facts are, it still doesn't get as good as a raw file you would be using for pictures, and you are still using a partially baked compressed file that is just "less clobbered". In my pro work, I shoot raw for stills. For video i shoot as flat as I can get the video, but it still ain't no raw file. On the other hand, raw files for video are not easy to work with like raw files for still images. And there are not that many cameras that even offer it, plus the knowledge it takes to process the video - or "grade" the video is harder to do.
 
Vlog is Panasonic's attempt to hardwire a very flat file for us to work with. They had CineD before this and I personally didn't like it. I found "natural" on the GH4 with everything turned to the flattest setting and for me is better to work with. In low light I like "vivid" with everything turned flat and seem to get lower noise. I am eager to see if this vlog will give a nice flat file to work with. For you, you need to remember your video shot in vlog will look terribly flat and bland. You will have to work it once in the computer, it isn't  a set-it-and-forget-it type of setting.
 
Hope that helps some.
 
Peter

You mentioned DSLR, so I am guessing you have a decent understanding of the process to take pictures. You can shoot either a jpg image or a RAW image. With video though, you can only shoot what amounts to a jpg image in video mode. The jpg system in the camera "bakes in" the settings that you set the camera to work with, and in the process it clobbers the file making it much harder to "processes later in your computer. Video people have their own language and they don't call it processing the video, they call it "grading" the video. You know, like teenagers have their own language, video people have their own language :)
 
So in an effort to do the very least clobbering of the file, and leaving as much of the information still to remain in the video, an effort is made to to do as little damage to the file as possible. To do this, the video is shot as "flat" as possible. This means little contrast, little color saturation, little sharpness - basically the most untouched the file can get. This leaves as much of the original data as possible to still be there to addressed and called upon when you get the video into the computer.
 
Companies recognize this process and they try to help. Just like you would have color calibrations called vivid, portrait, landscape, natural, standard and so on, they add special color choices for video. Sony has s-log, Panasonic is adding v-log, and so on. It is as dumbed down as the file can get and still get recovered in the computer.
 
The joke, or facts are, it still doesn't get as good as a raw file you would be using for pictures, and you are still using a partially baked compressed file that is just "less clobbered". In my pro work, I shoot raw for stills. For video i shoot as flat as I can get the video, but it still ain't no raw file. On the other hand, raw files for video are not easy to work with like raw files for still images. And there are not that many cameras that even offer it, plus the knowledge it takes to process the video - or "grade" the video is harder to do.
 
Vlog is Panasonic's attempt to hardwire a very flat file for us to work with. They had CineD before this and I personally didn't like it. I found "natural" on the GH4 with everything turned to the flattest setting and for me is better to work with. In low light I like "vivid" with everything turned flat and seem to get lower noise. I am eager to see if this vlog will give a nice flat file to work with. For you, you need to remember your video shot in vlog will look terribly flat and bland. You will have to work it once in the computer, it isn't  a set-it-and-forget-it type of setting.
 
Hope that helps some.
 
Peter

I have both, actually all 3.
 
It is hard to tell someone what to buy. The quality of the image and video from the LX100 is very good to excellent. Is it as good as the GH4? I would say if you are a pro and looking for the equal of the GH4 then the answer is no.
 
But if you are an enthusiast and can cut the camera some slack, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
 
Remember, I have only had the LX100 here for about 5 hours now, so as time goes on my opinion may change.
 
The disappointing thing about the LX100 is it is certainly not a baby GH4. The camera is 80 percent a point and shoot camera that dips into the higher end here and there. The menus try and emulate the GH4, but they are clumsy, and not just a little bit clumsy - low end pint and shoot type camera clumsy. I am quite surprised.
 
The camera would be a deal breaker for me if it were not for the really good quality video. I expect the images to be excellent too, it leans in that direction but I won't know until I can shoot RAW.
 
Here is a simple example. Say you are not totally or only a video guy. Video is really high on your list, but you want to take meaningful pictures too. I am a photographer, so when I take pictures - even just home pictures - if they are not "excellent" you know darn well the comment "and you are supposed to be a photographer" is going to hit you head on. To achieve those excellent pictures consistently, you really have to have control of the camera. So, take the LX100 in hand, go to take a shot and you will notice you have no control over the focus point. You can press 3 buttons and get control, or set the menu so you can have direct access to the 4 way controller just like the big boy cameras :) As you shoot along you want to do a custom white balance (something a lot of folks won't ever do) and you find you no longer can do a custom white balance unless you go into the menu and undo your setting to have direct access to the 4 way controller dial. You can change the white balance, but you can't do a custom white balance.
 
Now go to video.Is the quality as good as my GH4? not quite. But at 4K reduced to 1080, it is head and shoulders better than any direct 1080p camera I have used. Again, no custom white balance unless you go and reset the main menu back to the way it was. So now you give up using the 4 way controller easily and just go thru the hoops.
 
Bottom line, coming down fro the GH4 the feeling is yuck. Coming up from a Canon G1X II or a Sony RX100-3, the camera is terrific.
 
I won't be grabbing the LX100 for any pro level work, images or video. But I think most people will like the LX100. Its calling card is the 4k video quality - especially when going down to 1080 - and the bigger sensor for all other imaging. The focus is quite good and the camera surpasses almost all other point and shoot sized camera I have used. My problem is at $900 i would really really wanted more of a nod to having some usable features in it. For stills I cannot select a "lowest shutter speed" like I can on the EM1, but the GH4 doesn't have that either.
 
The GH4 with a 12-35 is a dream. It just works - period. if you do put the size differences in the mix, then get the 12-35 lens. If you want a 12-35 lens (almost, but not quite) and a free camera thrown in, then get the LX100.
 
Peter

I have both, actually all 3.
 
It is hard to tell someone what to buy. The quality of the image and video from the LX100 is very good to excellent. Is it as good as the GH4? I would say if you are a pro and looking for the equal of the GH4 then the answer is no.
 
But if you are an enthusiast and can cut the camera some slack, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
 
Remember, I have only had the LX100 here for about 5 hours now, so as time goes on my opinion may change.
 
The disappointing thing about the LX100 is it is certainly not a baby GH4. The camera is 80 percent a point and shoot camera that dips into the higher end here and there. The menus try and emulate the GH4, but they are clumsy, and not just a little bit clumsy - low end pint and shoot type camera clumsy. I am quite surprised.
 
The camera would be a deal breaker for me if it were not for the really good quality video. I expect the images to be excellent too, it leans in that direction but I won't know until I can shoot RAW.
 
Here is a simple example. Say you are not totally or only a video guy. Video is really high on your list, but you want to take meaningful pictures too. I am a photographer, so when I take pictures - even just home pictures - if they are not "excellent" you know darn well the comment "and you are supposed to be a photographer" is going to hit you head on. To achieve those excellent pictures consistently, you really have to have control of the camera. So, take the LX100 in hand, go to take a shot and you will notice you have no control over the focus point. You can press 3 buttons and get control, or set the menu so you can have direct access to the 4 way controller just like the big boy cameras :) As you shoot along you want to do a custom white balance (something a lot of folks won't ever do) and you find you no longer can do a custom white balance unless you go into the menu and undo your setting to have direct access to the 4 way controller dial. You can change the white balance, but you can't do a custom white balance.
 
Now go to video.Is the quality as good as my GH4? not quite. But at 4K reduced to 1080, it is head and shoulders better than any direct 1080p camera I have used. Again, no custom white balance unless you go and reset the main menu back to the way it was. So now you give up using the 4 way controller easily and just go thru the hoops.
 
Bottom line, coming down fro the GH4 the feeling is yuck. Coming up from a Canon G1X II or a Sony RX100-3, the camera is terrific.
 
I won't be grabbing the LX100 for any pro level work, images or video. But I think most people will like the LX100. Its calling card is the 4k video quality - especially when going down to 1080 - and the bigger sensor for all other imaging. The focus is quite good and the camera surpasses almost all other point and shoot sized camera I have used. My problem is at $900 i would really really wanted more of a nod to having some usable features in it. For stills I cannot select a "lowest shutter speed" like I can on the EM1, but the GH4 doesn't have that either.
 
The GH4 with a 12-35 is a dream. It just works - period. if you do put the size differences in the mix, then get the 12-35 lens. If you want a 12-35 lens (almost, but not quite) and a free camera thrown in, then get the LX100.
 
Peter

I have both, actually all 3.
 
It is hard to tell someone what to buy. The quality of the image and video from the LX100 is very good to excellent. Is it as good as the GH4? I would say if you are a pro and looking for the equal of the GH4 then the answer is no.
 
But if you are an enthusiast and can cut the camera some slack, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
 
Remember, I have only had the LX100 here for about 5 hours now, so as time goes on my opinion may change.
 
The disappointing thing about the LX100 is it is certainly not a baby GH4. The camera is 80 percent a point and shoot camera that dips into the higher end here and there. The menus try and emulate the GH4, but they are clumsy, and not just a little bit clumsy - low end pint and shoot type camera clumsy. I am quite surprised.
 
The camera would be a deal breaker for me if it were not for the really good quality video. I expect the images to be excellent too, it leans in that direction but I won't know until I can shoot RAW.
 
Here is a simple example. Say you are not totally or only a video guy. Video is really high on your list, but you want to take meaningful pictures too. I am a photographer, so when I take pictures - even just home pictures - if they are not "excellent" you know darn well the comment "and you are supposed to be a photographer" is going to hit you head on. To achieve those excellent pictures consistently, you really have to have control of the camera. So, take the LX100 in hand, go to take a shot and you will notice you have no control over the focus point. You can press 3 buttons and get control, or set the menu so you can have direct access to the 4 way controller just like the big boy cameras :) As you shoot along you want to do a custom white balance (something a lot of folks won't ever do) and you find you no longer can do a custom white balance unless you go into the menu and undo your setting to have direct access to the 4 way controller dial. You can change the white balance, but you can't do a custom white balance.
 
Now go to video.Is the quality as good as my GH4? not quite. But at 4K reduced to 1080, it is head and shoulders better than any direct 1080p camera I have used. Again, no custom white balance unless you go and reset the main menu back to the way it was. So now you give up using the 4 way controller easily and just go thru the hoops.
 
Bottom line, coming down fro the GH4 the feeling is yuck. Coming up from a Canon G1X II or a Sony RX100-3, the camera is terrific.
 
I won't be grabbing the LX100 for any pro level work, images or video. But I think most people will like the LX100. Its calling card is the 4k video quality - especially when going down to 1080 - and the bigger sensor for all other imaging. The focus is quite good and the camera surpasses almost all other point and shoot sized camera I have used. My problem is at $900 i would really really wanted more of a nod to having some usable features in it. For stills I cannot select a "lowest shutter speed" like I can on the EM1, but the GH4 doesn't have that either.
 
The GH4 with a 12-35 is a dream. It just works - period. if you do put the size differences in the mix, then get the 12-35 lens. If you want a 12-35 lens (almost, but not quite) and a free camera thrown in, then get the LX100.
 
Peter

Nicely done :) Glad to see the beginning of the end of the GH4 will take a while lol.
 
Peter

I think your exuberance with the A7s needs to be a little more balanced between personal preferences and real facts. Not because I deny anyone personal preference choices, but because there are people who follow your writings and respect your expertise and sometimes depend on your personal interpretations as vital information. Knocking off a camera from your personal likes doesn't make the guy who put his hard earned dime on the camera feeling very well. That same thing can be done using just results without deflating the follower of your site.
 
Saying you want the Sony A7s because you have "full frame lenses" is not a factor in any decision making process at all. Those lenses will fit on many body styles and give different results on each. The guy that is in love with extreme shallow depth of field would certainly go for a camera that specializes in that. However, the truth is there is certainly a reason on the flip side to want the light gathering performance of an f/1.4 lens but have the buffer of an f/2.8 in the process. Saying it is the beginning of the end of a camera like the GH4 you have been heralding really puts a nice taste in the mouth of people who used your exuberance with that camera to put money down to purchase it.
 
What is in the market now is a much wider choice than ever before and one does not cancel out the other. The GH4 gives you added light gathering abilities and the advantage of a wider depth of field, while the A7s gives the opposite with a very narrow DOF and cannot match what the GH4 does. The GH4 however can certainly give a very narrow DOF for people with the skill set to do it.
 
So my objection really is very simple, there are a lot of people who read these articles and opinions standing there holding a camera they bought with their money that suddenly gets trashed for reasons no greater than personal preferences. I think that just ain't so hot :)
 
There is really a ton of facts that come through a web site like this, and for me it is very appreciated. A little more respect for the guy "holding the bag" for a sharp turn of preferences would be nice. Exuberance of why a camera is earth shattering is lots of fun and exciting, but there are lots of people who already hold one of the other bodies that are suddenly on a poo poo list that can be done a lot smoother than this is being done. My 2 cents.
 
Peter

I think your exuberance with the A7s needs to be a little more balanced between personal preferences and real facts. Not because I deny anyone personal preference choices, but because there are people who follow your writings and respect your expertise and sometimes depend on your personal interpretations as vital information. Knocking off a camera from your personal likes doesn't make the guy who put his hard earned dime on the camera feeling very well. That same thing can be done using just results without deflating the follower of your site.
 
Saying you want the Sony A7s because you have "full frame lenses" is not a factor in any decision making process at all. Those lenses will fit on many body styles and give different results on each. The guy that is in love with extreme shallow depth of field would certainly go for a camera that specializes in that. However, the truth is there is certainly a reason on the flip side to want the light gathering performance of an f/1.4 lens but have the buffer of an f/2.8 in the process. Saying it is the beginning of the end of a camera like the GH4 you have been heralding really puts a nice taste in the mouth of people who used your exuberance with that camera to put money down to purchase it.
 
What is in the market now is a much wider choice than ever before and one does not cancel out the other. The GH4 gives you added light gathering abilities and the advantage of a wider depth of field, while the A7s gives the opposite with a very narrow DOF and cannot match what the GH4 does. The GH4 however can certainly give a very narrow DOF for people with the skill set to do it.
 
So my objection really is very simple, there are a lot of people who read these articles and opinions standing there holding a camera they bought with their money that suddenly gets trashed for reasons no greater than personal preferences. I think that just ain't so hot :)
 
There is really a ton of facts that come through a web site like this, and for me it is very appreciated. A little more respect for the guy "holding the bag" for a sharp turn of preferences would be nice. Exuberance of why a camera is earth shattering is lots of fun and exciting, but there are lots of people who already hold one of the other bodies that are suddenly on a poo poo list that can be done a lot smoother than this is being done. My 2 cents.
 
Peter